This invention relates to the sportsfishing and commercial fishing inductries, specifically, to a method and process of slowly dispensing fish attractant chums at extreme or shallow depths by means of water pressure release of an attractant chum.
2. Description of Prior Art.
Heretofore, the Prior Art of Class 43. subclass 44.99 has in my search, revealed a lack of means to dispense a low viscosity, natural fish attracting chum in a slow release manner at great ocean depths. Previous methods incorporate a number of attempts to accomplish similar results, but lack the fundemental approach as detailed in my Invention Disclosure to the Commissioner Of Patents And Trademarks Document Disclosure Program, Disclosure Document Number 261322 dated Aug. 27, 1990. As the author of many detailed fishing articles in the New England area, I am reasonably confident the Prior Art does not address, a directly attached to the fishing line, large quantity, low viscosity, natural fish attractant chum, that is truely able to be assured, that at depths, up to at least three hundred feet, that the attractant will be present at those depths. A detailed analysis of the Prior Art will reveal the failure to present that assurance. Existing methods cannot perform this function to the best of my knowledge. A slow release method of dispensing the attractant is required at great ocean depths, and when combined with the natural ingredients of the system herein, makes this a new Utility of a flexible plastic shell vial, now associated with the packaging and hardware industries. This patent application, and the system, requires that the attractant chum be easily obtainable and that it able to flow with the ocean currents in a manner that allows fish to quickly follow its scent to the area of dispersion, immediately about the baited hook or fishing jig.
Prior Art does not consider that a low viscosity, semi-fluid, 100% natural attractant exists, nor does the Prior Art consider that this must be dispensed at extreme ocean depths and consequent extreme ocean pressures. This patent application is congruent with the manners and methods required to attain a reasonably high level of results in the attraction of deep or shallow water fishes, with a low cost to the consumer while gaining significant advantage over the Prior Art forms and methods.
While certain Prior Art allows for the dispersion of an attractant chum with semi-solids or masses, in perforated housings, or liquids in a disposable flexible shell plastic container, attached directly to a specially designed and constructed fishing hook, they cannot dispense a low viscosity attractant in a perforated housing, nor do they consider the required quantity of attractant when attached directly to a specially constructed hook. Likewise, the Prior Art does not consider the likely damage incurred at great depths when fishing over rocky structure. This patent application seeks to present a proper quantity of low viscosity attractant in a reuseable dispenser, thus, improving on the Prior Art relative to reuse of the dispenser and as it relates to working properly at extreme depths of at least 300 feet which was the maximum avaiable test depth. I believe this invention is able to work at greater depths with equally good results.
While it is well known that the use of a fish attracting chum works to the benefit of fishermen, certain Prior Art such as U.S. Pat. No. 3,974,591 class 43 subclass 44.99 Aug. 17, 1976 to Otis Ray, Seminole, Fla. cannot work with a low viscosity semi-fluid attractant due to the extreme of perforations in the design of the housing. This housing cannot contain a semi-fluid for any reasonable period of time, as it would simply leak out at atmospheric pressure. If a low viscosity attractant were placed in the Otis Ray dispenser, and then sent to the bottom, the water pressure, and subsequent entrainment by velocity pressures would wash the attractant entirely from the perforated housing, rendering the Otis Ray dispenser useless, when used for a low viscosity attractant chum. The Ray patent requires a semi-solid mass reference 17 of that patent. Very simply put, the water action, acting against a perforation causes vortexing and increased velocities through the perforation, and, results in the wiping away of the attractant at a rate that increases itself as less of the attractant is present in a perforated housing.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,554,756 class 43. subclass 44.99 Nov. 26, 1985 to Mit Thomas, Malakoff, Tex., is close in Prior Art, but, lacks certain abilities such as, reuse of the flexible shell housing, the quantity of attractant required to reach great ocean depths, due to the required hook size, and specifically, the facts that, it requires a specially engineered and constructed hook, a specially engineered and constructed scissor like tool, required so as, to fasten the disposable housing to the hook, a speciallized method of sealing the disposable housing, and an unknown adhesive, that must, in fact, stand up to the water pressure, and the detereoration caused by water in general, which generally would require great efforts in the finding of a non heat treated adhesive able to function below the water, while under pressure. All of the aforementioned, requires a high tooling up cost, with the production of esoteric tools and machinery for filling and sealing the dispenser, and finally, while this patent appears excellent in its scope, it can be used only once, rendering obsolesance of the dispenser from its first time use. It is doubtful that anyone could build this system of things without great effort and consumed time in order to make the Mit Thomas patent a low cost natural fish attractant product in the marketplace, and in view of its disposable aspects, as, and when, compared to the simplicity of the applicants invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,839,982 class 43. subclass 44.99 June 20, 1989 to Robert Wood, Ballwin, Mo. This patent suffers the same deficiencies as the previous Prior Art, in that, containment of a low viscosity semi-fluid attractant is not possible at great ocean depths, for any reasonable period of time, due to the obvious distortion the mesh bag would be subjected to, coupled with the entrainment of water velocity pressures associated with its fall to the ocean floor, nor would this mesh bag contain the attractant at atmospheric pressure for any prolonged period of time, such as, the applicants patent has proven to do. The annular space at the bottom closure cap of the applicants invention reduces dripping or flow from the dispenser to that of an absolute minimum, at atmospheric pressures.
The Robert Wood patent was issued to contain a fishing bait, in a mesh porous bag that covers a portion of the hook, while attached to the fishing line, it could be considered as a chum, but, is primarily a means to preserve a semi solid bait. It is well known that fish respond to sight as well as smell, for this reason, when the is bait concealed, the fish are prevented from using sight as a means to determine the final location of the bait prior to striking at the bait, whereas, the applicant's invention does not necessarily conceal the attractant, but allows its flow to the surrounding downstream current, thus, drawing the fish into the vicinity of the, visually seen baited hook or fishing jig, thereby allowing the use of olfactory stimulation, and sight, as a means to maximize the normal senses of a fish in a feeding posture. For instance, recent studies of sharks in a feeding frenzy, by the well known Eugenie Clark, reveal that, they (sharks) depend on sight as a means of locating their quarry up until the very moment they strike the object to be swallowed, and at that moment, only then do they roll back the protective eyelid to protect their eyes. Hence, these studies verify the fact, that sight and viewing of the quarry is a prime requirement of feeding fish. Trout, on the other hand, depend primarily on sight as a means to locate for instance, a mosquitoe on the surface of the water. Trout fishermen using trout flies, while fly rodding, do not depend on any external olfactory senses of the fish when presenting a trout fly having virtually no odor, several feet below. Trout also depend on their combined olfactory and sight senses when pursuing an earth worm. While this seems to be a lengthy of explanation of a fishes abiltity to locate their quarry, it is necessary to make the reader aware of exactly how fish respond to the presentation of baits and attractant chums.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,829,705 class 43 subclass 44.99 and class 43, subclass 54.1 May 16, 1989 to Harris Dorsey, Port Neches, Tex., relates to a chum basket of larger proportions than could be used while fishing with a fishing rod. It is a basket with a door meant to be hung from a rope or wire while suspended from an object above, for instance, a boat or a bouy, and then hung at such a depth as the user deems necessary to attract fish to his fishing rig. It is a weighted device of unknown physical proportions, and given the extreme perforations of the basket, would not allow for the dispersion of a low viscosity attractant, and in fact, lends no purpose to the applicants invention contained herein. The Dorsey patent as it stands, is unable to be used in the manner the applicants invention requires.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,235,198 class 119, subclass 51 R; 119/3; and 43/44.99 Nov. 25, 1980 to Oliver Goguel, Paris, France is listed as Prior Art in those Class/ Sub-class divisions, whereby, it is a device meant to attract fish and feed fish. The Goguel patent does not relate specifically to the catching of fish, and in its large proportions, could not present an effective means to be used from a fishing rod. As contained in its Abstract, it is meant for feeding fish.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,744,167 class 43 subclass 42.36; 43/42.1; 43/42.36; 43/43.2; and 43/44.99 May 17, 1988 to George Steele, East Greenbush, N.Y. In its Abstract, the Steele patent covers a fishing lure, comprised of a stabilized keel combined with a hook and an absorbant deformable material, with the deformable material used to retain the odor of an attractant chum liquid. This device, is not, a slow release, dispenserized fish attracting system, and could not contain the quantity of low viscosity semi-fluid attractant in a slow release method, as the applicants invention illustrates as being required of the invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,903,430 to Thomas DeWan, filed Feb. 8, 1989 and apparently issued Feb. 27, 1990 in that Gazette; St. Petersburg, Fla. class 43, subsclass 44.99 This is a recent patent to a fish bait, attached directly to the body of a living fish, does not attach directly to the line, would or could be lost on the first strike of a fish given its proximimity to the bait fish, and by its nature of design, is a one time disposable item, the problem is that you have to catch or buy a live fish prior to the use of the DeWan patent, and you do that, by the use of the applicants invention, to catch a fish either for bait, or for human consumption.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,903,429 class 43 subclass 43.99 issued Feb. 27, 1990 to John Tetenes, Amityville, N.Y. This device is a chum basket meant to float on the surface of the water and attract fish to the vicinity of the basket, it does not attach directly to the line, but is meant to draw fish into the area, where hopefully, the fish will go in search of your baited hook, there is no resemblance to the applicants method, nor, presentation thereof.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,924,620 U.S. class 43, subclass 44.9 filed Apr. 14, 1989 and as apparently issued May 15, 1990 to John Kimberly, Hornsby, New South Wales, Australia, This patent is for a fishing float with a dual compartment, one of which is used for ballast, and one of which could be used for a semi-solid attractant chum. It could not be used for a semi-fluid attactant, given the high amount of perforations. This patent bears a striking resemblance to the Otis Ray, U.S. Pat. No. 3,974,591 in that, the design of same, is a float with perforations allowing the release of a semi-solid mass to the surrounding water, and in no way bears a resemblance to the applicants patent application contained herein, nor could it contain a slow release, low viscosity attractant as the applicants invention is required to do.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,930,245 class 43, subclass 42.17 as filed Sept. 26, 1989 and apparently as issued June 25, 1990 to Guido Bazzano, Alessandria, Italy. This recent patent is an artificial spoon bait for fishing with an attractant chum or not. Its purpose appears dual in its nature of design, as the container is able to present a ground bait similar to the Mit Thomas U.S. Pat. No. 4,554,756, whereby, the container dispenser is placed directly to the fishing hook in a concentric manner, but adapted with a spoon flasher for enhancing the sight requirements of a fish, as previously discussed herein, and a rotatable body, so as, to allow a varied flow of the ground bait to be emmitted from said container. This device would suffer the same results as the Mit Thomas patent over a rocky North Atlantic ocean floor, as, it is imperative to prevent the container from damage caused by the ocean floor. This device can be used without an attractant, making it, truely a fishing lure, whereas, the applicants invention is not a fishing lure by its essence.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,930,247 class 43, subclass 42.31 as filed July 3, 1989 and apparently issued June 5, 1990 to Eugene DuBois, Louisana. This patent covers a fishing lure spinner blade with rattle chamber. This is a fishing lure, and its chamber contains a rattle for attracting fish, it does not contain a chamber for the release of an attractant chum, and depends on the third sense of hearing of the fish combined with sight, but lacks the ability to utilize the sense of smell as previously discussed herein, which is a prerequisite of the applicants invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,887,376 class 43 subclass 42.06 Dec. 19, 1990 to Ken Sibley, this patent is for a chemically based fish attractant. U.S. Pat. No. 4,752,480 class 426, subclass 1; June 21, 1988 to Jean Paul Charbonnier, Paris, France, this patent once again is a myriad combination of chemicals to form a fish attractant.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,826,691 class 426, subclass 1, to John Prochnow Spirit Lake, Iowa. This patent was issued to cover the attracting of fish with a water soluble, one time use, fish attractant membrane gelatinous film, put to the surface of a fishing lure, where its gelatinous formulation would attract marine life. It is not at all similar to the applicants invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,654,725 class, 43 subclass 44.99 Apr. 11, 1972 to William Kingston, Dublin, Ireland. This patent is a fish bait dispenser system of mechanical design, whereby, a time release mechanism is sheared by galvanic action, and a knife blade is sprung from its holder, by that action, cutting open the vacuum sealed bag. It is unclear how long this takes and it is not at all similiar to the applicants invention, nor is it meant to be used from a fishing rod, but seemingly, to be used in a baited fish trap, where the fisherman leaves the trap for a few days.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,654,724 class 43 subclass 42.06 Apr. 11, 1972 to John Charron, Manitoba, Canada. The Charron patent is a fishing lure with an ability to be used with blood, liver, worms etc together with a weight if desired. It is not similar to the applicants invention in that the applicants invention is not a fishing lure, contains no hook(s) and is totally independent as it relates to its methods used to attract fish.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,769,740 class 43, subclass 44.99, Nov. 6, 1973 to Albert Lang, Bloomfield, N.J. The Lang patent bears a striking resemblance in the U.S. Pat. No. 4,924,620 to John Kimberly New South Wales Australia, discussed previously, in that, it is a bouyant chamber with a chum releasing method and it does not form an integral part of the fishing line in a concentric manner, and reveals the possibility that it would or could be seperated while in use, rendering loss of the top chamber. As per the Kimberly patent, the Lang patent is not similar to the applicants invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,953,934 class 43, subclass 42.06 May 4, 1976 to Melvin Visser, Portage, Mich. this patent is close in prior art, in that, it is concentrically placed about the fishing line and is able to present a fish attractant chum, but, it is constructed of, a rigid, sintered metal body formed from metal powder, which is required to be impregnated by soaking the device for a period of time in a fish attractant chum, whereby, the release of the attractant chum is from the pores of said metal device, it is unclear how the device would act under extreme pressures, and exactly the quantity required so as to assure reaching those depths, it is not a container, but a porous device made of metal, having no resemblance to the applicant's.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,138,794 class 43 subclass 43.14 Feb. 13, 1979 to Fernando Chiodini, Brooklyn, N.Y. This patent covers a combination sinker and bait jiuce dispenser with a sponge, and plunger, to release a fish attractant chum. The applicants invention is not a sinker, has no sponge, releases the attractant chum by means of water pressure, and is concentric about the fishing line, it has no similarties to the applicants invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,602,453 class 43 subclass 44.99 July 29, 1986 to Rulu Perez, and Julio Perez, Miami, Fla. This invention is a Bait activator device with a direct current motor, having no similarity to the applicants invention as the applicants invention, has no motor, and uses the forces of nature, to perform its intended function.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,602,453 class 43, subclass 44.99 July 29, 1986 to Joesph Polley, Massapequa, N.Y. This patent covers a Scent Lure and an arrangement for attracting fish from said lure when it is combined with the "float for storing scented fluid", "a tube spacing said lure from said float and providing flow communication from said float to said lure". This patent does not concentrically become an integral working portion of the main fishing retreival line, but conveys scent directly to the fishing lure and does not resemble the applicants invention, and would be damaged or caught by or between rocks.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,638,588 class 43, subclass 44.99 Jan. 27, 1987 to Carole Abadie, Irving, Tex. This patent issued to cover a fish attracting device having no resemblance to the applicants invention. It is a chum basket of sorts.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,638,584 class 43, subclass 17.6 Jan. 27, 1987 to William Lindsay, West Monroe, La. This patent is close in Prior Art, but requires the use of a fishing lure so as to make the embodiment complete in its form. It does discuss a flexible outer capsule, but, is issued to contain a "Luminescent" chemical composition, that, whereby the fracturing of an internal and frangible membrane causes the mixing of two chemicals, it is, in fact, a non-reuseable chemically based compound, that releases chemicals to the Eco-System, requires its use with an opaque fishing lure, and in no manner or form resembles the applicants invention, which requires, reuse of the dispenser vial for reduced stress to the environment, by its required reuse, and non-chemical nature of the attractant chum.